Design and Evaluation of General Purpose, Barrier, and
Multichannel Plasticating Extrusion Screws
David O. Kazmer ,1 Clemens M. Grosskopf,2 David Rondeau,1 Varun Venoor1
1
Department of Plastics Engineering, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts
2
Department of Plastics Technology, University of Applied Science, Darmstadt, Germany
Extrusion screw designs and validation are presented for
three multiple channel, fractal screws for comparison with
common general purpose, and barrier screws using an
instrumented single screw extruder with high impact poly-
styrene (HIPS) and low density polyethylene (LDPE) at vary-
ing screw speeds. The fractal screws are designed with
multiple channels and pressure–volume–temperature rela-
tions to control shear heating with cooling by adiabatic
decompression. The general-purpose design had the
highest throughput but did not provide sufficient mixing
and so resulted in excessive variation in the melt tempera-
ture and pressure at screw speeds above 40 RPM. The bar-
rier screw was a capable design with good performance
for LDPE and HIPS with screw speeds from 20 to 60 RPM.
However, it tended to provide excessive shear heating at
higher screw speeds due to the large surface area of the
barrier and mixing sections. The first fractal screw design
was a multichannel variant of the general-purpose design
and exhibited good consistency but excessive heating due
to the large bearing area between the flights and barrel.
The second fractal screw design provided decompression
in the feed zone and metering zone to improve throughput
but was limited by a poor transition section design. The
third fractal screw design remedied these deficiencies with
an improved transition section and intermittent clearances
for dispersive mixing. Its performance rivaled that of the
barrier screw with respect to volumetric output and energy
efficiency but provided better melt pressure consistency.
Cold screw freezing experiments were performed for all
five screws with 5% black, blue, and violet colorants seri-
ally added to neat HIPS. The cold screw pulls showed that
the general purpose and barrier screws exhibited signifi-
cant racing of the materials within their screw channels
and, thus, broad residence time distributions. Examination
of the material cross sections indicated persistent coiled
sheet morphologies, which were best dispersed with the
third fractal screw. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 60:752–764, 2020. © 2020
The Authors. Polymer Engineering & Science published by Wiley
Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Plastics Engineers.
Correspondence to: D.O. Kazmer; e-mail: david_kazmer@uml.edu
Contract grant sponsor: University of Massachusetts; contract grant number:
President’s Office of Science & Technology. contract grant sponsor: U.S.
Army; contract grant number: W911QY-17-2-0004.
DOI 10.1002/pen.25333
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
© 2020 The Authors. Polymer Engineering & Science published by Wiley
Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Plastics Engineers.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distri-
bution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is
non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
INTRODUCTION
Extrusion is the workhorse of the plastics industry. Not only is
extrusion used in the conversion of pellets to finished goods (tub-
ing, sheet, film, profiles, etc.), but it is also used in many com-
mercial compounding and polymerization processes. There are
many extrusion screw designs with significant advances including
the early rubber screws, metering screws with varying depth
flights, melt barrier screws, and various mixing screws. Screw
design guidelines are well known [1–3] but based on rules of
thumb and often inaccurate assumptions that can lead to sub-
optimal designs. While extrusion process simulations such as
from Compuplast [4], Plastic Flow [5], Ludovic [6], and Fluent
[7] are advancing, they are not widely used for screw design and
do not model some crucial aspects of the polymer processing
including compaction of the solidified bed, granular flows
(e.g., slippage and rotation) of the polymer feedstock, adiabatic
compression, and other factors.
Similar to how injection molds are designed on an application-
specific basis, the goal of our current research is to enable a meth-
odology for application-dependent analysis and design of
plasticating screws considering the material properties
(e.g., thermal and rheological) and specific application objectives
(e.g., throughput, energy efficiency, and consistency). The vision
is to enable the concept of “single pellet extrusion” in which each
piece of feedstock has the same, optimal processing history. We
have not yet achieved this goal. However, this article provides
two contributions. First, the article describes the analysis and
application of adiabatic compression in the transition zone and
adiabatic decompression in the metering zone to control the melt
temperature and improve the processing consistency through
screw design. Second, the article describes a “fractal” screw
design in which larger upstream channels are divided into smaller
downstream channels to ensure more homogeneous processing.
The evolution of the research is described with respect to the per-
formance of three fractal screws compared to general purpose and
barrier screws, with additional contributions made related to the
performance analysis.
ANALYSIS
The compressibility behavior is well characterized by the
pressure–volume–temperature (PVT) relations. The “Tait equa-
tion” was originally derived to model the density of fresh and sea
water over wide pressure ranges [8, 9] and has since been found
to accurately predict the specific volume of dense gases, liquids,
solids, and mixtures. Zoller designed an instrument for character-
izing the PVT behavior of polymers and modeling this behavior
with a double domain Tait Equation [10–12]. Here, “double
domain” means that the specific volume is modeled separately in
the solid and melt states as a function of pressure and
temperature.
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2020
 The design intent is to specify the screw channel’s depth and
helix angle to more optimally control the specific volume, v, and
shear heating of the polymer. Since the specific volume is both a
function of pressure P and temperature T, calculus suggests that
the equation of state can be used to provide an estimate of the
response of temperature with pressure:
dT dν dν β sure at the die outlet via a Dynisco PT462E-5 M transducer, the
= = =− ð1Þ
dP dP dT α melt temperature at the die inlet via a Tempco-TMB00028 intru-
The typical and proposed adiabatic plastication paths are plot-
ted in Fig. 1 in which the adiabatic path employs higher melt
pressures earlier in the plastication process with decompression in
the metering zone. While the paths do not seem very different,
physics suggest that small changes in screw design will improve
processing performance. For reference, the compressibility coeffi-
cient, β, is approximately 1.510−3 MPa, while the thermal expan-
sion coefficient, α, is approximately 9.710−4  C. As a result, the
derivative of temperature with respect to pressure is
dT/dP = (1.510−3 MPa)/(9.710−4  C) = 1.5 C/MPa. For the adia-
batic path plotted in Fig. 1, this adiabatic behavior means that a
10 MPa decrease in the melt pressure across the metering zone
caused by designed decompression will also drive a decrease in
the melt temperature by 15 C. Such manipulation of the
plastication path may be used for various reasons such as (1) all-
owing the screw to operate at higher speeds while avoiding exces-
sive shear heating or (2) providing the melt additional time for
mixing or equilibration. As a result, new screws can be designed
to operate at higher speeds or with increased production efficiency
and consistency.
EXPERIMENTATION
A single-screw extruder (Davis-Standard, Pawcatuck, CT) with
a screw diameter of 38 mm (1.5 in) was used for the screw
FIG. 1. PVT behavior with proposed adiabatic path. [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
DOI 10.1002/pen
validation. A data acquisition system (MKS SenseLink, Andover,
MA) was implemented to acquire 11 digital inputs and 23 analog
inputs. The digital signals indicated the power supply to each of
the barrel zone heaters and fans as well as the die heaters. The
analog signals indicated the infrared melt temperature via an
Omega IRT/C-0S36 infrared thermocouple, the melt pressure at
the barrel outlet via a Gefran M31-6-M transducer, the melt pres-
sive melt thermocouple, the lateral and vertical extrudate dimen-
sions via a Metralight XY laser micrometer, the extrudate velocity
at the Reliance Minipak-plus puller via the puller’s control poten-
tiometer, the extruder’s power consumption via an Acuvim II-M-
333-P1 power meter, the angular screw position via a TRD-
NA1024NWD absolute rotary encoder, the water bath tempera-
ture, the environment temperature, and others.
The materials tested included high impact polystyrene (Styron
478 supplied by Entec Polymers) and a two melt flow index
(MFI) low-density polyethylene (Hytel 2, also supplied by Entec).
The polymers were typically processed around 200 C with appar-
ent viscosities characterized as provided in Table 1. For reference,
a 38 mm diameter screw having a 3.8 mm channel depth operat-
ing at 40 RPM will impart apparent shear rates on the order of
20 s−1. As indicated in Table 1, the melt viscosities are relatively
similar at processing temperatures of 200 C, although high impact
polystyrene (HIPS) is slightly more viscous at low shear rates.
The two materials vary significantly with respect to melt density
with HIPS being 0.960 g/cc while low density polyethylene
(LDPE) is 0.755 g/cc. LDPE, as a semicrystalline polymer, has a
required melt enthalpy of 293 J/g, but one should expect HIPS to
have a higher mass output rate due to its higher melt density. The
effect of these thermal and rheological properties will become evi-
dent in the observed results.
All screws and materials were operated at the same process
conditions. The die zones were set to 200 C while the tempera-
tures for the four barrel zones (from outlet to inlet) were
maintained at 200, 200, 180, and 160  C. The die was designed
to cylindrical flow channel with a length: diameter ratio of 10 and
a diameter of 3 mm. The extrudate was processed at a linear
velocity of 30 mm/s, measured by the laser micrometer as a scan
speed of 100 Hz, and then granulated and recycles. At the start of
each material’s extrusion trial, 2 kg of recycled LDPE or HIPS
was first processed to purge residual polymer from the barrel and
screw. Then, four charges of 4 kg of each of the materials were
processed through a four-step profile of screw speeds (40, 60,
20, and 40 RPM) to investigate the dynamic and steady state per-
formance of each screw. After the LDPE and HIPS were
processed, the melt plastication process was studied in a manner
similar to Maddock’s screw freezing experiments [13] by serially
feeding three differently colored charges of HIPS when the first
two turns of the feed section were visibly starved. Each of the
100 g charges had 4% loadings of black, blue, and violet color-
ants as described for a prior research project [14]; the purpose of
this study [14] was to characterize the statistical significance of
rheological differences in melts due to colorants, and no differ-
ences were measurable at these loadings. The extruder was then
stopped after the violet material had cleared the first two turns of
the screw and allowed to cool. The screws were then removed
using an ACME screw driven by a pneumatic impact drill.
Section lines were then drawn down the length of the screw and
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2020 753
TABLE 1. Viscosity (Pa s) of LDPE and HIPS at 200 and 220 C. (GP) screw derived from common screw design guidelines for a
“square pitch” screw in which the pitch is equal to the screw
LDPE HIPS diameter. The screw is divided into the standard feed, transition,
  
Shear rate (1/s) 200 C 220 C 200 C 220 C and metering zones of equal length in which the channel depth of
the feed zone is 20% of the screw diameter and the channel depth
6561 17 15 15 11 of the metering zone is 10% of the screw diameter. The flight
2187 36 31 34 25
width is constant and equal to 10% of the screw diameter, with a
729 72 62 74 53
243 143 115 157 110
constant 1.6 mm fillet at the flight root. The compression ratio
81 256 205 328 223 (CR) for this “standard” GP screw was 2.0, whereas commercial
27 456 362 642 390 screws often have compression ratios of 2.8 for LDPE and about
9 786 624 1337 636 3.0 for HIPS. As the results will demonstrate, the low compres-
sion ratio of the investigated GP screw yields high throughputs
per screw turn but low melt temperature and consistency.
the solidified plastic cut using custom-made Dremel bits adapted The barrier screw (BS) is considered a state-of-the-art design
from bronze rods. Views of the top and polished cut sections of that incorporates a separate melt channel to ensure complete
the frozen processed polymers are subsequently provided and plastication prior to the metering section. As shown in Fig. 2, the
discussed. barrier screw design uses a secondary flight beginning in the tran-
sition zone to separate the melted polymer adjacent the primary
flight from the unmelted pellets, thereby avoiding the develop-
SCREW DESIGNS ment of a large melt zone in the primary channel that slow the
Five screws designs were investigated, with four customs efficient melting of the feedstock. This screw also uses a full cir-
screws designed by Kazmer and purchased from Nordson/Xaloy. cumferential barrier at the end of the transition section to guaran-
The reference standard (used as the basis for development and tee the plastication of fully melted feedstock prior to the final
also comparison of the other four designs) was a barrier screw mixing and pumping sections.
provided from U.S. Army Natick labs that was designed for The remaining three “fractal” screws (F1, F2, and F3) are des-
LDPE film extrusion (e.g., multilayer packaging films). The bar- ignated as 1×2×4, meaning that they have one channel in the feed
rier screw and the other four screws all had a 27:1 length to diam- zone, two channels in the transition zone, and four channels in the
eter ratio and a nominal diameter of 38.0 mm, providing a metering zone. The design intent of the 1×2×4 flights is to reduce
0.1 mm diametral clearance between the screws and the bore of the width of the channels in the transition and metering zones
the extruder barrel. The geometries of the five screws are depicted because the required melting rate is governed by the square root
in Fig. 2, including the general-purpose (GP, top), barrier screw of the channel width [15]. By using an increased number of chan-
(BS), first fractal (F1), second fractal (F2), and third fractal (F3). nels in the downstream zones, melting rate and consistency are
Table 2 provides the channel geometries for each turn of the five improved without compromising the higher throughputs afforded
studied screws. In the table, n is the number of flights in each with a single channel in the feed zone. As such, all the fractal
screw zone, the channel and flight widths are, respectively, repre- screws are designed with a low compression ratio around 1.5 to
sented by W and w, while H is the channel depth. From these increase processing rate with their melting and consistency perfor-
data, the helix angle and incline angle may be readily calculated. mance subsequently analyzed.
A detailed discussion of the screw designs would be quite The F1’s feed section is designed with a single channel to effi-
extensive, so the details are described at the layout level of ciently load the channel with pelletized and granulated feedstock
design. The simplest of the designs is the general purpose from the feed throat. The lead, channel width, and channel depth

FIG. 2. Geometry of the five studied screws including general-purpose (GP, top), Barrier screw (BS), first fractal (F1),
second fractal (F2), and third fractal (F3).

754 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2020 DOI 10.1002/pen

TABLE 2. Channel geometries by turn for each of the five studied screws.

GP: General purpose BS: Barrier screw F1:Fractal screw #1 F2: Fractal screw #2 F3:Fractal screw #3
Turn
n W w H n W w H n W w H n W w H n W w H

1 1 34.3 3.81 7.57 1 34.3 3.81 7.57 1 33.5 3.81 7.62 1 37.2 3.43 7.62 1 37.3 3.43 7.62
2 1 34.3 3.81 7.57 1 34.3 3.81 7.57 1 33.5 3.81 7.62 1 37.1 3.54 7.87 1 37.3 3.43 7.62
3 1 34.3 3.81 7.57 1 34.3 3.81 7.57 1 33.5 3.81 7.62 1 37.0 3.66 8.13 1 37.3 3.43 7.62
4 1 34.3 3.81 7.57 1 34.3 3.81 7.57 2 18.5 3.81 7.62 1 36.9 3.77 8.38 1 37.3 3.43 7.62
5 1 34.3 3.81 7.57 1 34.3 3.81 7.57 2 18.5 3.81 7.62 1 36.8 3.89 8.64 1 37.3 3.43 7.62
6 1 34.3 3.81 7.57 1 34.3 3.81 7.57 2 18.5 3.81 7.07 2 21.5 3.89 8.64 2 21.8 3.24 7.21
7 1 34.3 3.81 7.32 1 34.3 3.81 7.57 2 18.5 3.81 6.51 2 21.9 3.54 7.86 2 21.8 3.06 6.80
8 1 34.3 3.81 7.06 1 34.3 3.81 7.57 2 18.5 3.81 5.96 2 22.2 3.18 7.08 2 21.8 2.88 6.39
9 1 34.3 3.81 6.81 1 34.3 9.91 6.77 2 18.5 3.81 5.40 2 22.6 2.83 6.30 2 21.8 2.69 5.98
10 1 34.3 3.81 6.55 1 34.3 11.1 5.98 2 18.5 3.81 4.85 2 22.9 2.48 5.52 2 21.8 2.51 5.57
11 1 34.3 3.81 6.30 1 34.3 12.3 5.18 2 18.5 3.81 4.29 2 23.3 2.13 4.74 2 21.8 2.32 5.16
12 1 34.3 3.81 6.05 1 34.3 13.5 4.38 2 18.5 3.81 3.74 2 23.6 1.78 3.96 2 21.8 2.14 4.75
13 1 34.3 3.81 5.79 1 34.3 14.7 3.59 2 18.5 3.81 3.18 2 24.0 1.43 3.18 2 21.8 1.95 4.34
14 1 34.3 3.81 5.54 1 34.3 15.9 2.79 4 9.52 3.81 3.22 4 14.4 1.48 3.29 2 21.8 1.77 3.93
15 1 34.3 3.81 5.28 1 34.3 17.1 1.99 4 9.52 3.81 3.26 4 14.3 1.53 3.40 2 21.8 1.58 3.52
16 1 34.3 3.81 5.03 1 34.3 18.3 1.20 4 9.52 3.81 3.30 4 14.3 1.58 3.51 4 13.5 1.58 3.52
17 1 34.3 3.81 4.78 1 34.3 19.5 0.50 4 9.52 3.81 3.34 4 14.2 1.63 3.62 4 13.5 1.59 3.53
18 1 34.3 3.81 4.52 6 76.2 3.81 * 4 9.52 3.81 3.37 4 14.2 1.68 3.73 4 13.5 1.60 3.55
19 1 34.3 3.81 4.27 1 34.3 3.81 3.59 4 9.52 3.81 3.41 4 13.5 1.61 3.58
20 1 34.3 3.81 4.01 1 34.3 3.81 3.59 4 9.52 3.81 3.45 4 13.5 1.62 3.60
21 1 34.3 3.81 3.76 4 13.5 1.63 3.63
22 1 34.3 3.81 3.76
23 1 34.3 3.81 3.76
24 1 34.3 3.81 3.76
25 1 34.3 3.81 3.76
26 1 34.3 3.81 3.76
27 1 34.3 3.81 3.76

*Maddock style mixer with channel depth of 3.6 mm.

in the feed section are, respectively, 100%, 90%, and 20% of the
screw diameter (identical to the GP design). In the fourth turn of
the F1 screw, the feed channel is split into two transition chan-
nels. With the same flight thickness of 10% of the screw diameter
and an increased helix angle of 20 , each transition channel is
48% of the screw diameter with a depth that transitions to 8% of
the screw diameter after 10 turns. The objectives are twofold:
(1) to physically break up the solidified bed and thus impart more
physical work on the feedstock by the flights and (2) to provide a
uniform and greater amount of shear on the polymer. The
metering section of the F1 screw introduces an additional set of
flights at a helix angle of 24 , with each having a metering chan-
nel having a channel width of 25.1% of the screw diameter and a
final channel depth of 9% of the screw diameter. The design
intent is to provide ~12% volumetric decompression such that
temperatures become more uniform while developing the melt
pressures required for extrusion.
The first F1 screw was designed and tested in 2016. As subse-
quently shown in the results section, the F1 screw had excellent
melt pressure consistency but low volumetric throughput and
excessive shear heating at higher screw speeds. Accordingly, the
second fractal (F2) screw shown in Fig. 2 and Table 2 was
designed with five major changes. First, to increase volumetric
throughput, the helix angles were increased with flight leads of
40.64, 50.8, and 60.96 mm in the feed, transition, and metering
zones. Second, to increase volumetric throughput, the channel
widths were maximized by using a varying flight width equal to
45% of the channel depth. Third, to reduce feedstock compaction
and increase throughput, the channel depth increases from 20 to
25% of the screw diameter across six turns of the feed zone.
Fourth, to improve equal loadings of the channels when adding a
secondary flight, the F2 screw introduces all flights at the center
of the preceding outlet channel to split the flow into the two
streams. Fifth, to improve dispersive mixing for processing of
filled systems, diametral clearances of 0.1 mm were provided on
every other flight in the metering zone to improve dispersive
mixing. Note that this clearance design would allow wiping of the
barrel by the subsequent flight without the larger clearance.
The F2 screw was designed and tested in 2017. As subse-
quently shown in the results section, the F2 screw had excellent
volumetric throughput but poor melt pressure consistency. The
poor melt pressure consistency was caused by two issues. First,
the transition design depicted in Fig. 2 did not provide adequate
channel clearance such that cold slugs of material could lodge and
subsequently be forced through upon build-up of pressure and
melting. Second, the long added clearance on alternative flights in
the metering zone contributed to consistently larger pressure
cycling (surging). Accordingly, the F3 screw was designed to
remedy these deficiencies with evaluation in 2018. First, a new
“crossover” transition design was created with the assistance of
computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulation. Here, the pitch of
the primary flight was first increased to the pitch for the down-
stream zone (see Table 2) and the secondary flight added as in the
F1 design. However, to encourage equal loading of the two

DOI 10.1002/pen POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2020 755

channels, a portion of the primary flight was removed. The sec-
ond major change in the F3 design was the replacement of the
added 0.1 mm clearance on alternating flights with intermittent
clearances every 20 mm down the length of the primary flight in
the transition and metering zones. Another change, observable in
Fig. 2, was the maximization of the flight fillet to reduce melt
stagnation per Spalding’s guidance [16] after observing long resi-
dence times in the screw freezing studies as well as tarnishing of
the screw surface after extended use.
FIG. 3. Mean extrudate output per the stepped protocol as a function of time
(top) and screw speed (bottom) for LDPE (hollow markers) and HIPS (filled
markers). [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
756 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2020
RESULTS
Figure 3 provides the mean extrudate mass flow rate output for
LDPE (hollow markers) and HIPS (solid markers) for each screw
according to the protocol described in the experimental section;
the mass flow rates were calculated given the loading times for
each charge of the LDPE and HIPS materials. There are three pri-
mary conclusions from these graphs. First, with respect to screw
output, the order the GP screw had the highest mass flow rate
with the other screws in decreasing order being the F2 screw
(86% of GP), barrier screw (81% of GP), F3 screw (80% of GP),
and F1 screw (62% of GP). The second conclusion is that all
screws had approximately 30% higher production rates of HIPS
than LDPE, which is expected due to HIPS higher melt density
(0.939 g/mL) compares to that of LDPE (0.748 g/mL). The third
conclusion is that the mass output is very linear with screw RPM.
There is a small reduction from linear with screw speed associated
with pressure-driven back flow in the screw channels, but the loss
is small since the extrudate pressures for producing the 3 mm
diameter strand are relatively low, on the order of 10 MPa.
While the general purpose screw had excellent throughput, it
did not provide enough work on the polymer such that the
extrudate quality was very poor, especially at higher screw
speeds. The reason is evident in the melt temperature traces of
Fig. 4. The general purpose screw had relatively wide and deep
channels, such that at higher screw speeds the polymer would be
fed forward at very high rates without sufficient melting. Examin-
ing the general purpose screw’s trace in Fig. 4, the in-melt ther-
mocouple was just above 200 C upon starting at 40 RPM but
quickly dropped below 196 C when the screw speed was
increased to 60 RPM. Similar behavior was also observed for
HIPS, with the extrudate for both LDPE and HIPS being accept-
able at 20 and marginal at 40 RPM but highly inhomogeneous at
60 RPM. Higher melt temperature tended to be observed for the
other screws at increased screw speeds albeit with some variations
in behavior. The F1 and barrier screws exhibited significant
increases in the melt temperature at higher screw speeds that are
indicative of excessive shear heating as further discussed in the
next paragraph. Meanwhile, the F2 and F3 screws exhibited
higher melt temperatures for HIPS at higher screw speeds, but a
nonmonotonic decrease in the melt temperature for LDPE at
60 RPM. This nonmonotonic behavior is intriguing since it sug-
gests that screws can be designed on an application-specific basis
to be “robust” per Taguchi [17] and Six Sigma [18] philosophies,
wherein even relatively large changes in the screw RPM result in
consistent melt temperatures.
The extruder was instrumented to estimate the heating and
cooling to each zone through a calibration procedure examining
the dynamic response of the barrel thermocouple to step changes
in the heating and cooling signals. Interestingly, the calibration
study indicated that the extruder heaters and fans were well mat-
ched, such that they provided maximum heating and cooling on
the order of 2 kW, respectively. Figure 5 plots the power input
for zone 4 corresponding to the end of the barrel adjacent the
metering zone. The results provide significant insight to the extru-
sion process. For the general purpose screw, there is so little shear
heating that the extruder is always providing heat to this barrel
zone. At higher screw speeds (corresponding to 1,000 and 4,000 s
per Fig. 3), heat convection from the barrel to the cooler polymer
requires increased heating power to maintain the barrel
DOI 10.1002/pen

FIG. 4. Melt temperature per the mass flow rates of Fig. 3 as a function of
time (top) and screw speed (bottom) for LDPE (hollow markers) and HIPS
(filled markers). [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
temperature of 200 C. However, this barrel temperature is insuffi-
cient to bring the melt to the same target temperature given the
mass flow rates through the screw channels. Meanwhile, the F1
screw is at the opposite end of the spectrum with significant fan
cooling at all, but the slowest screw speeds. Indeed, the controller
is saturated at 60 RPM with fans barely providing enough cooling
to maintain the barrel temperature set-point. The bottom plot of
Fig. 5 suggests that the F2 and F3 screws perform the best with
very little heating power for LDPE and the lowest cooling power
for HIPS. The barrier screw requires cooling for LDPE at
60 RPM as well as for HIPS at 40 and 60 RPM due to the large
DOI 10.1002/pen
FIG. 5. Zone 4 (end of barrel) power input per the mass flow rates of Fig. 3
as a function of time (top) and screw speed (bottom) for LDPE (hollow
markers) and HIPS (filled markers). [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
contact area between barrel and the barrier and mixing sections
of the screw. It is interesting to note that for all screws, the bar-
rel thermocouple temperature was well controlled (within
0.2 C) so the behaviors discerned from Fig. 5 could not be
deduced without analyzing the control signals from the tempera-
ture controller.
The melt pressure traces and mean melt pressures are plotted
in Fig. 6. The melt pressure behavior closely follows expectations
from processing theory. As indicated in viscosity data of Table 1,
HIPS is more viscous than LDPE at a temperature of a 200 C and
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2020 757

FIG. 6. Melt pressure per the mass flow rates of Fig. 3 as a function of time
(top) and screw speed (bottom) for LDPE (hollow markers) and HIPS (filled
markers). [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
a shear rate of 20 s−1 so the melt pressures for HIPS are consis-
tently higher than the melt pressures for LDPE. Also, the data
plotted in Fig. 6 indicate that the melt pressure generally follows
the Hagen–Poiseuille law with melt pressure being nearly linear
with motor speed and flow rate with some curvature due to shear
thinning behavior of the flow through the die. The primary excep-
tion is for the F1 screw that resulted in excessive shear heating
and increased melt temperatures; there is a significant nonlinear
response in the melt pressure for HIPS at 60 RPM as indicated by
the solid inverted triangle.
758 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2020
FIG. 7. Specific energy consumption (J/g) per the mass flow rates of Fig. 3
as a function of time (top) and screw speed (bottom) for LDPE (hollow
markers) and HIPS (filled markers). [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 7 provides traces and parametric plots of the apparent
specific energy (units of J/g) required to process the LDPE and
HIPS with each of the five screws. The spikes at the start of each
step change in RPM are related to the energy required to change
the screw speed and adjust the barrel heaters and fans to equili-
brate to the new set point. There are several other important con-
clusions supported by the data. First, the LDPE tended to require
more energy per unit mass to process as would be expected given
that it is semicrystalline material that required more energy for
melting and so had a lower mass flow rate than HIPS at the same
screw speeds. Second, energy consumption is reduced with higher
screw speeds because there is a fixed energy cost associated with
DOI 10.1002/pen
maintaining an operating an extruder. For this extruder, the base-
line energy consumption was approximately 1 kW causing very
high apparent energy consumption at lower screw speeds. Con-
versely, at higher speeds, this fixed energy cost is spread across
more extrudate output. In addition, the viscous heating of the
polymer tends to provide a greater fraction of the energy for melt-
ing such that the extrusion process becomes more energy effi-
cient. Third, there is a screw speed at which the process becomes
inefficient or inoperable. For example, the F1 screw with its
excessive shear heating required significant fan cooling at speeds
of 60 RPM such that the apparent specific energy was much
higher than the other screws. Indeed, the F1 screw processing the
more viscous HIPS required so much cooling that it was on par
with the LDPE. Meanwhile, the general purpose screw appeared
to have much lower energy requirements, but it is emphasized that
this is due to its higher mass output of cold, poorly processed
materials especially at higher screw speeds.
It is interesting to consider the energy efficiency of Fig. 7 rela-
tive to the theoretical minimum. The minimum theoretical energy
can be estimated as the energy required to melt and pump the
polymer. Given a heat capacity for HIPS of 1,400 J/kg C and a
temperature increase of 180 C, the minimum theoretical heat
input is ~250 J/g. At a flow rate of 5 cc/s and pressures of
10 MPa, another 50 J/g is required to drive the material through
the die for a total energy of ~300 J/g (equivalent to 0.083 kWh/
kg). LDPE, with its higher specific heat of 2,300 J/kg C and melt-
ing enthalpy of 293 J/g, would require ~700 J/g (equivalent to
0.19 kWh/kg). Considering the energy consumption indicated in
Fig. 7, the extrusion process was more thermodynamically effi-
cient for the processing of LDPE, with the general purpose screw
providing an efficiency of 47.6% followed by the barrier screw
and F3 screw at 42.7% and 40.2%, respectively. The thermody-
namic efficiency was significantly lower for HIPS with the gen-
eral purpose screw providing an efficiency of 27.1% followed by
the F3 and barrier screw providing respective efficiencies of
21.6% and 20.7%. These efficiencies correspond to a screw speed
of 40 RPM and would be higher at higher screw speeds such as
60 RPM and beyond, although the general purpose screw did not
provide sufficient extrudate stability for such operation.
DISCUSSION
Table 3 provides the figures of merit for the five plasticating
screw with respect to the processing of LDPE, HIPS, and their
averages. In the table, each row of data represents the average of
each screw’s behavior across the range of screw speeds from
20 to 60 RPM according to the stepped profile of Fig. 3. The spe-
cific rate is defined as the plastication rate divided by the screw
speed [19]. The volumetric output is defined as the average mass
output per screw turn divided by the melt densities that were cal-
culated per the double-domain Tait equation at the observed melt
temperatures with the values as indicated in Table 3. It is
observed that the LDPE melt has a much higher specific volume
(around 1.337 mL/g) compared to the HIPS melt (around
1.065 mL/g), such that the average volumetric output per screw
turn of the LDPE and HIPS are quite consistent (generally within
5%) for the various screw designs. The results suggest that the
mass and volumetric outputs are dominated by the geometry of
the screws and ultimately the melt displacement provided by the
metering section per screw turn. The resulting melt temperature
DOI 10.1002/pen
controls the melt viscosity, which then controls the melt pressure.
Accordingly, the GP screw with its low compression ratio has the
highest volumetric output, lowest melt temperature, highest vis-
cosity, and highest melt pressure as well as the highest melt tem-
perature and pressure variation. Analysis of the barrier and fractal
screws follows similarly, with the barrier and F3 screw providing
similar volumetric flow rates, melt temperatures, melt pressures,
and consistencies, but the analysis has greater subtleties with
respect to the transient behavior of the extrusion process. Both the
melt temperature traces (top plot of Fig. 4) and the melt pressure
traces (top plot of Fig. 6) provide important insight into the
dynamic response of the extrusion process to step changes in
screw speed. Close examination of the individual traces reveals
that a step change in screw speed often causes an underdamped
response in the melt pressure. For example, a step change from
40 to 60 RPM will cause (1) the melt pressure to immediately
increase due to the increase in volumetric flow rate, (2) an
increase in the melt temperature due to the additional shear
heating, and followed by (3) a slight decrease in the melt pressure
due to the reduced melt viscosity at higher temperature.
To investigate the behavior of the different screws, system
identification was performed using the prediction-error minimiza-
tion (PEM) algorithm [20] of Matlab 2018 (Mathworks, Cam-
bridge, MA). The simplest model of the observed behavior is the
underdamped second-order system:
Kp
sys = ð2Þ
1 + 2ζT w s + ðT w sÞ2
where s is the Laplace operator, Kp is the proportional gain relat-
ing screw speed to melt output, Tw is the response time, and ζ
(zeta) is the damping ratio.
Table 4 provides the extrusion process models for each mate-
rial, screw, and step response. It is observed that the screws really
are not significantly different with respect to their dynamic
response. Generally, the coefficients of the proportional gain (Kp,
units of MPa/RPM) closely follow the volumetric outputs of
Table 3 with the screws having the highest output (e.g. the gen-
eral purpose screw) having the highest melt pressure per RPM.
The time constant (Tw) varies somewhat but not in a consistent or
significant fashion; the average and standard deviation of the time
constant across all 30 combinations of screws, materials, and step
changes was 106.2 s and 17.6 s, respectively. The time constant
would intuitively seem related to the mean residence time of the
screw, but this intuition is countered by the fact that the time con-
stant does not appear to be a significant function of the screw
speed. Accordingly, the time constant is believed to be pre-
dominated by the characteristic heating time of the material resid-
ing in the metering channel of the extrusion screws.
A second-order system is underdamped when the damping
coefficient, zeta, is less than one as is the case for with a step
increase in screw speed. The modeled dynamic response in the
melt pressure upon an increase in the screw speed is governed by
model coefficients Kp of 0.28 MPa/RPM, Tw of 108 s, and ζ of
0.9 such that an underdamped response is observed with over-
shoot in the melt pressure and melt temperature as observed in
Figs. 4 and 6. Meanwhile, the coefficients of Table 4 indicate that
decreasing the screw speed, as from 60 to 20 RPM, results in an
overdamped response. The hypothesis of the cause is that the
decrease in the screw speed will ultimately result in a steady-state
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2020 759
TABLE 3. Figures of merit for LDPE, HIPS, and average for each of the five studied screws.

GP BS F1 F2 F3

LDPE figures of merit

Mean melt temperature ( C) 200.0 202.2 203.1 201.9 202.1
Calculated specific rate (g/hr/RPM) 304.5 339.6 468.7 337.3 360.5
Specific volume (ml/g at melt temp) 1.335 1.337 1.338 1.337 1.337
Average mass output (g/screw turn) 5.423 4.648 3.612 5.023 4.700
Volumetric output (ml/screw turn) 7.242 6.217 4.833 6.717 6.286
Heating+cooling power (kWh/kg output) 0.292 0.289 0.374 0.285 0.311
Motor power (kWh/kg extrudate) 0.117 0.166 0.254 0.168 0.173
Total energy (kWh/kg extrudate) 0.408 0.455 0.628 0.452 0.483
Standard deviation melt pressure (MPa) 0.074 0.058 0.014 0.111 0.034
HIPS figures of merit
Mean melt temperature ( C) 201.8 204.4 205.2 204.4 204.7
Calculated specific rate (g/hr/RPM) 376.4 494.1 763.8 468.4 472.0
Specific volume (ml/g at melt temp) 1.064 1.066 1.066 1.065 1.065
Average mass output (g/screw turn) 7.297 5.660 4.230 5.905 5.527
Volumetric output (ml/screw turn) 7.764 6.031 4.510 6.291 5.888
Heating + cooling power (kWh/kg output) 0.127 0.145 0.264 0.152 0.145
Motor power (kWh/kg extrudate) 0.180 0.258 0.359 0.230 0.240
Total energy (kWh/kg extrudate) 0.307 0.403 0.623 0.382 0.385
Standard deviation melt pressure (MPa) 0.120 0.079 0.023 0.167 0.015
Average figures of merit
Mean melt temperature ( C) 200.9 203.3 204.1 203.2 203.4
Calculated specific rate (g/hr/RPM) 340.4 416.8 616.3 402.8 416.2
Average mass output (g/screw turn) 6.360 5.154 3.921 5.464 5.113
Volumetric output (ml/screw turn) 7.503 6.124 4.671 6.504 6.087
Heating + cooling power (kWh/kg output) 0.210 0.217 0.319 0.219 0.228
Motor power (kWh/kg extrudate) 0.149 0.212 0.307 0.199 0.207
Total energy (kWh/kg extrudate) 0.358 0.429 0.626 0.417 0.434
Standard deviation melt pressure (MPa) 0.097 0.068 0.018 0.139 0.024

extrusion process with less shear heating and a more viscous
material. Since the material residing in the barrel is at a higher
temperature and is less viscous, the step decrease in screw speed
causes an immediate decrease in the melt pressure due to the step
change in the flow rate through the extrusion die followed by
additional time for the melt pressure to stabilize with the relatively
more viscous material.
The stability of the steady-state response is also of interest
because it largely governs the consistency of the extrudate proper-
ties. Figure 8 provides 30 s of the melt pressure trace from Fig. 6
for the extrusion of HIPS at a screw speed of 40 RPM just prior
to the performance of the color study. The effect of the screw
rotation, often referred to as surging or the screw beat, is readily
observed in Fig. 8. As common, the period of the screw beat
matches the rotation of the general purpose and barrier screws
with 20 peaks observed across a 30 s span. The magnitude of the
sinusoidal wave is similar for the general purpose and barrier
screws—on the order of 0.2 MPa. Analysis of the data for the F1
screw (with its four flights in the metering zone) indicates that it
has a much smaller sinusoidal amplitude (approximately
0.05 MPa) with a frequency increased by a factor of four. Interest-
ing, the F2 screw (with four flights in the metering zones but
large clearances on the second and fourth flights) exhibits the
largest variation at a frequency twice of the screw beat. The F3
screw exhibited a sinusoidal amplitude on the order of the F1
screw with both high- and low-frequency components.
The last row of Table 3 provides the standard deviation of the
pressure data plotted in Fig. 8; the standard deviation of a
sinusoidal curve is proportional to its amplitude such that the stan-
dard deviation represents an average estimate of the total variation
across the range of observations. It should be noted that the data
of Table 3 are for steady-state operation at a screw speed of
40 RPM, and higher pressure variance was observed at 60 RPM
especially for the general purpose screw (observe the variation of
Fig. 6 at 6500 s for the processing of HIPS by the GP screw). In
Table 3, the standard deviation of the melt pressure tends to be
greater for HIPS than for LDPE. This result should be expected
because HIPS is more viscous than LDPE and so the pressure
(and the standard deviation of pressure) should be proportional to
the viscosity. Overall, the analysis indicates that the pressure was
least consistent for the F2 screw (average standard deviation of
0.139 MPa), followed by the general purpose screw (average stan-
dard deviation of 0.097 MPa), followed by the barrier screw
(average standard deviation of 0.068 MPa). The F1 and F3 screws
had the lowest average standard deviations in the melt pressure of
0.018 and 0.024 MPa, respectively. It should be understood that
the F1 and F3 screws actually had very similar consistency
because the F1 screw had 25% lower mass output at the same
screw speed. In other words, increasing the screw speed for the
F1 screw to match the output of the F3 screw would result in an
increase in melt pressure and the standard deviation of melt pres-
sure to make the F1 and F3 screws equivalent with respect to the
standard deviation of the melt pressure. The improved pressure
consistency associated with the F1 and F3 screws is associated
with improved melt temperature homogeneity as well as the
balancing of the volumetric flow rates across the four channels in

760 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2020 DOI 10.1002/pen

TABLE 4. Extrusion process models for each screw, material and step response.

GP BS Fl F2 F3

Response models: LDPE

Kp (MPa/RPM), step from 40 to 60 RPM 0.219 0.196 0.169 0.223 0.201
Kp (MPa/RPM), step from 60 to 20 RPM 0.171 0.121 0.131 0.170 0.170
Kp (MPa/RPM), step from 20 to 40 RPM 0.324 0.288 0.253 0.343 0.261
Kp, mean: 0.238 0.202 0.184 0.245 0.210
Tw (s), step from 40 to 60 RPM 115.1 136.4 109.4 99.9 113.1
Tw (s), step from 60 to 20 RPM 129.4 102.6 102.8 118.3 119.9
Tw (s), step from 20 to 40 RPM 125.1 101.9 99.3 106.7 167.6
Tw, mean: 123.2 113.6 103.8 108.3 133.5
Zeta, step from 40 to 60 RPM 1.01 1.10 1.62 0.72 1.17
Zeta, step from 60 to 20 RPM 2.22 3.30 5.66 4.57 1.54
Zeta, step from 20 to 40 RPM 0.73 0.80 1.16 1.07 0.88
Zeta, mean: 1.32 1.73 2.81 2.12 1.20
Response models: HIPS
Kp (MPa/RPM), step from 40 to 60 RPM 0.265 0.227 0.197 0.250 0.237
Kp (MPa/RPM), step from 60 to 20 RPM 0.219 0.128 0.108 0.164 0.155
Kp (MPa/RPM), step from 20 to 40 RPM 0.437 0.383 0.326 0.420 0.356
Kp, mean: 0.307 0.246 0.210 0.278 0.249
Tw (s), step from 40 to 60 RPM 110.9 101.8 116.7 67.4 90.0
Tw (s), step from 60 to 20 RPM 85.7 93.3 88.1 90.1 100.0
Tw (s), step from 20 to 40 RPM 110.9 109.9 85.4 88.3 100.0
Tw, mean: 102.5 101.7 96.7 81.9 96.6
Zeta, step from 40 to 60 RPM 0.83 0.86 0.57 0.72 0.85
Zeta, step from 60 to 20 RPM 3.40 12.05 33.10 16.75 21.95
Zeta, step from 20 to 40 RPM 0.74 0.83 0.75 0.85 0.77
Zeta, mean: 1.66 4.58 11.47 6.11 7.85
Response models: Grand menas
Kp: 0.273 0.224 0.197 0.262 0.230
Tw: 112.9 107.7 100.3 95.1 115.1
Zeta: 1.49 3.16 7.14 4.11 4.53

FIG. 8. Melt pressure traces for the five studied screws for the processing of HIPS at a screw speed of 40 RPM just
prior to the color study.

DOI 10.1002/pen POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2020 761


FIG. 9. Cold screw pulls and cross sections from top: General
purpose, barrier, F1, F2, and F3 screws. [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
the metering zone. Indeed, it is interesting that the standard devia-
tion of melt pressure is on the order of one quarter that of the gen-
eral purpose and barrier screws.
The cold screw pulls are depicted in Fig. 9 and provide signifi-
cant insights into the plastication process for the different screws.
First, the relative amount of compaction in the feed section of the
screws can be discerned from the starting location (from right) of
the solidified bed since the empty portion of the feed zone chan-
nels corresponds to loose pellets that did not have sufficient con-
tact pressure or contact time with the heated barrel in order to
fuse together. The barrier and F3 screws provide the most com-
paction at the start of the transition zone while the general pur-
pose and F2 screw had the least compaction. The behavior
follows directly from the geometry data of Table 2 and corre-
sponds closely to the volumetric outputs of the various screws.
The blockage in the transition of the F2 screw is evident from the
gap in the material at flight 8a and is associated with its increase
in surging relative to the other screws. A similar rupture of the
solidified bed is observed at turn 6 a/b of the F3 screw, although
this is associated with loose packing, thermal contraction, and
uncoiling during the screw removal process.
Examining the distribution of the colors on the exterior of the
screws in Fig. 9, it is evident that the screws have very different
plastication behaviors. Both the general purpose and barrier
screws evidence “racing” flows in which the latter material enter-
ing the feed zone is pushed ahead of the material that entered ear-
lier. For example, it is clear that the blue material at turns 15–18
is racing ahead of the black material adjacent the active flank.
Similar behavior is seen in the barrier screw at turns 12–16 of the
barrier screw as well as turn 13–16 of the F2 screw. It is interest-
ing to note the alternating color pattern in the shades of the F2
screw with 21a-1 and 21b-3 being lighter than 21a2 and 21b4.
762 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2020
We believe this occurred due to the racing of the flow into prior
channels 16a and 16b, which were then subdivided at turn 17.
Interestingly, the F1 and F3 screws do not exhibit this racing
behavior. The reason is that the transition channels depicted in
Fig. 2 are efficient in metering the upstream material into the
downstream channels. Since the pellets largely have a plug flow
in the feed zone, the first transition at the start of the transition
zone is effective in maintaining the order of the fed materials. We
believe that this is critical to improving the uniformity of the resi-
dence time. Of course, there are some observable material gradi-
ents within the channels of the F1 and F3 screws due to the
known recirculation behavior of the material within the screw
channels.
We have examined the cross sections of the various screws in
detail, confirming the existence of two recirculation zones as
suggested by Tadmor and Shapiro [21, 22]: (1) a smaller but more
active recirculation zone adjacent the active flank and (2) a slower
recirculation zone encompassing the entirety of the channel cross
section. We have developed a 2.5D simulation with 60 layers
through the thickness to model the flow in a general purpose
screw, which explains the presence of vortical fountain flows
[23]. Essentially, there is increased flow conductance caused by
higher temperatures and shear rates in the recirculating melt pool.
The recirculating flows in the melt pool will tend to create coiled
sheet morphologies. If the coiled sheet morphologies are stable
and extend down the length of the screw, variances in melt tem-
perature due to the shear rates of vortical fountain flow can
become quite extreme, on the order of 10 C or more.
Accordingly, we hypothesize that the screw “surging” phe-
nomenon is actually due to melt temperature and viscosity varia-
tions as the melt is flows off the screw with each screw turn and
into the die. This temperature variation hypothesis suggests some
obvious remedies in polymer processing. The most obvious solu-
tion is to reduce shear heating relative to heat conduction by oper-
ating at lower screw speeds since operating the extruder at high
speeds increase shear rates and heat generation in the vortical melt
pool while also allowing less time for heat conduction. A second
important solution for screw design is to incorporate additional
mixing sections at different locations along the length of the
screw. The intermittent mixing section will cause the break-up of
what would otherwise be persistently growing melt recirculations
in the melt pool adjacent the active flank.
The fractal screw designs described herein were motivated to
improve the consistency of extrusion processes in three ways.
First, the use of adiabatic decompression in the metering zones
provides precious time for the plasticated material to homogenize
while being further worked. Second, the use of multiple channels
and the described transition zones at the start of the transition
zone can be used to maintain control of the material feeding into
the downstream channels, or to provide mixing of the materials
between the screw channels in the metering zones. Third, and per-
haps less obvious, the use of multiple channels having smaller
width reduces the channel length required for melting. The reason
is that the material in a channel of width W melts from the left
and right sides inward, such that the melting time is proportional
to square root of the width [24]. Accordingly, the melt length is
inversely proportional to the square root of the number of flights
given the same flight lead angle. As such, the F3 screw with its
one feed channel, two transition channels, and four metering
channels has the melting performance of a screw 1.69 times that
DOI 10.1002/pen

FIG. 10. Gray scale images of metering zone sections at locations indicated
by the rectangles on the cross sections in Fig. 9.
of the general purpose screw. While it has only 21 turns, it should
have the performance of a screw with a length-to-diameter ratio
of 35:1.
Returning to the frozen screw pulls, Fig. 10 provides gray
scale images of metering zone sections at locations indicated by
the rectangles in the cross-sections of the metering zone in Fig. 9.
For each of the five screws, the volume of the charges for the
HIPS color study were sufficient to ensure that the black material
would propagate to the end of flow. The black striations in the
general purpose screw are evidence of the recirculating flow;
close examination of the ring patterns indicates the inner rec-
irculating zone at right inside a larger, outer recirculating zone.
While not obvious but is shown by simulation, there is a large
temperature gradient through the thickness and across the width
of this section. We believe that this temperature gradient causes
viscosity variations that contribute to the screw surging phenome-
non as the material is pushed out of the screw channels and
through the extrusion die.
Somewhat surprisingly, the coiled sheet morphology is highly
persistent and survives passage through the barrier screw’s blister
ring and mixing sections. Readers interested in additional high-
resolution cross sections are referred to our paper on vortical
fountain flows [23] for further information. The coiled sheet mor-
phology is also evident in the F1 and F2 screws. Interestingly,
both the F1 and F2 screws also exhibit alternating high/low pat-
terns in the concentration of the black material in the channel
cross sections. The F3 screw appears to provide very good distrib-
utive mixing (due to the transition channels at the start of the
metering zone) without the alternating concentration of the black
material. It also appears to provide good dispersive mixing due to
the increased clearances between the flights in the metering zone
and the barrel.
We do not suggest that the F3 screw is an optimal design, and
this journal article has only striven to document our progress to
date. We believe that improved screw designs are possible and
may be realized using the degrees of freedom afforded by the use
of multiple channels in combination with varying mixing ele-
ments. If we have the opportunity to continue this line of research,
we would further improve distributive mixing by incorporating
more transition sections along the length of the screw such as
shown for the F3 in Fig. 2. We also readily admit that the clear-
ances investigated for dispersive mixing are insufficient since they
are not efficient and also act on only a small portion of the poly-
mer processed by the screw; we wish to continue the investigation
of Rauwendaal [25] into the use of elongational flows in the
DOI 10.1002/pen
metering zone. In these efforts, higher fidelity simulations are
needed to truly enable screw design that optimally trade-off
energy efficiency, throughput, and consistency on an application-
specific basis. Higher resolution models afforded by increased
computational resources are not enough; further research is
required related to the modeling of the heat transfer and contact
boundary conditions between the polymer and the screw as well
as the behavior of the material in the solidified bed.
CONCLUSIONS
Three fractal screw designs have been designed and validated
relative to commonly used general purpose and barrier screw
designs. The general purpose design, while simple with the
highest throughput, did not provide sufficient mixing of either
HIPS or LDPE and resulted in excessive variation in the melt
temperature and pressure at screw speeds above 40 RPM. Increas-
ing its compression ratio from 2:1 to 2.5 or 3:1 would greatly
improve its performance. The barrier screw was a capable design
with good performance for LDPE and HIPS with screw speeds
from 20 to 60 RPM. However, it tended to provide excessive
shear heating at higher screw speeds due to the large surface area
of the barrier and mixing sections. Both the general purpose and
barrier screws exhibited significant racing of the materials within
their screw channels and, thus, broad residence time distributions.
The fractal screws (F1, F2, and F3) were designed to use mul-
tiple channels with transition sections to emulate the performance
of a virtual screw having a longer length. The F1 screw was the
simplest of the designs and had good consistency but low volu-
metric output as well as low energy efficiency due to excessive
shear heating between the metering flights and the barrel. The F2
screw was designed with decompression in the feed zone to
improve throughput as well as decompression in the metering
zone to equilibrate the melt temperature. However, its perfor-
mance was limited due to a poor transition section design as well
as inferior clearances on alternating metering zone flights. The F3
design remedied these deficiencies with an improved transition
section, and its performance rivaled that of the barrier screw with
respect to volumetric output and energy efficiency. However, vali-
dation data including cold screw pulls indicated that F3 design
provided better melt homogeneity and pressure consistency.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded in part by U.S. Army Natick Sol-
dier Research Development and Engineering Center
(NSRDEC) and Harnessing Emerging Research Opportunities
to Empower Soldiers (HEROES) Contract #W911QY-
17-2-0004 SLIMM Project MN-1 New thermoplastic materials
using microcrystalline cellulose, UMass President’s Office
Technology and Commercial Ventures Fund, and MKS
Instruments.
REFERENCES AND CITED WORK
1. R.T. Fenner, Extrusion Screw Design, Iliffe, London (1970).
2. J.L. White and H. Potente, Screw Extrusion: Science and Tech-
nology, Hanser Gardner Publications, München, Germany
(2003).
POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2020 763
 3. T.P. Womer, Single Screw Design: 20 Years of Society of Plas-
tics Engineers’ Practical and Theoretical Technical Papers,
DESTech Publications, Lancaster, Pennsylvania (2006).
4. M.T. Martyn, P.D. Coates, and M. Zatloukal, Plast. Rubber Com-
pos., 43(1), 25 (2014).
5. K. Walczak, M. Gupta, K. Koppi, J. Dooley, and M. Spalding,
Polym. Eng. Sci., 48(2), 223 (2008).
6. M. Kristiawan, G. Della Valle, K. Kansou, A. Ndiaye,
B. Vergnes, and C. David, Rhéologie, 27, 24 (2015).
7. L. Xia, D. Dong, H. Zhang, and C. Yu, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.,
111, 540 (2017).
8. P. Tait, "Physics and Chemistry of the Voyage of HMS Chal-
lenger, Vol. II, Part IV, SP LXI, Longmans, London, 1888.
9. J. Dymond and R. Malhotra, Int. J. Thermophys., 9(6), 941
(1988).
10. P. Zoller, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 23(4), 1051 (1979).
11. P. Zoller, J. Polym. Sci. Polym. Phys. Ed., 20(8), 1453 (1982).
12. P. Zoller and D.J. Walsh, Standard Pressure-Volume-
Temperature Data for Polymers, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida
(1995).
13. B. H. Maddock, "A Visual Analysis of Flow and Mixing in
Extruder Screws," SPE ANTEC Tech. Papers, vol. 15,
pp. 383–389 (1959).
14. M. Fisches, D. Kazmer, and G. Gordon, Verification of Rheologi-
cal Mixing Rules to the Application of Masterbatches, Society of
Plastics Engineers (SPE) ANTEC, Cincinnati, OH (2013).
764 POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE—2020
15. C. Rauwendaal, "Estimating Fully Developed Melt Temperature
in Extrusion," in Proceedings of the Extrusion Division of the
Society of Plastics Engineers Annual Technical Con-
ferenceOrlando, FL (2000), pp. 307–311.
16. M. Spalding, "Mitigating Gels in Polyethylene Products Pro-
duced Using Grooved-Bore, Single-Screw Extruders," SPE
ANTEC Extrusion Division, Anaheim, California, 2017.
17. G.I. Taguchi, Taguchi on robust technology development: bring-
ing quality engineering upstream (ASME Press Series on Interna-
tional Advances in Design Productivity.), ASME Press,
New York (1993). xvi, 136.
18. D. Kazmer and C. Roser, Res. Eng. Des., 11(3), 20 (1999).
19. E. E. Stangland, J. Dooley, M. Spalding, E. Kim, and K. Hyun,
"Fundamental characterization of polypropylene extrusion," in
Proceedings of the Extrusion Division of the Society of Plastics
Engineers Annual Technical Conference, pp. 302–306 (2002).
20. J. Sjöberg, Q. Zhang, L. Ljung, A. Benveniste, B. Delyon, P.
Y. Glorennec, H. Hjalmarsson, and A. Juditsky, Automatica, 31
(12), 1691 (1995).
21. Z. Tadmor, I. Duvdevani, and I. Klein, Polym. Eng. Sci., 7(3),
198 (1967).
22. I. Klein and Z. Tadmor, Polym. Eng. Sci., 9(1), 11 (1969).
23. D. Kazmer, C. Grosskopf, and V. Venoor, Polymers, 10(8), 823
(2018).
24. C. Rauwendaal, Plast. Additiv. Compd., 10(6), 32 (2008).
25. C. Rauwendaal, Plast. Addit. Compd., 4(6), 24 (2002).
DOI 10.1002/pen